St. Landry democrat., 1887-11-26

claimed that ,here is not a single antl-Nich-
| oils man. II there ever was an advertised
meeting in Webster parish, this was The one
Ii there ever was a representative one, ihiS
was the one; and II a question ever WAS
openly stated. it was that this mass meeting
would select the delegates. / append Il emp
ping ont OF the Tribune the week preceding
The mass meeting from Il committee signed
Country Nichols Men,;
ave earnestly protest against the infer
ence and Indignantly resent as an insult to
our intelligence tho call made lis by the
''first, last ami at all the time MoncIro' pa
| pr published III Mlnden to come out on tne
Plat OF November to the mass meeting and
help put do the Miuuen rag
Tnc following is an extract from an edl-
tOriat i'll the Trlbune:
1--WE were present at the meeting of the
executive committee that ordered the mass
meeting. Tney ordered that the mass meet
ing be neld during court Week because they
knew that the country wards would be
represented better Ltian usual at mass meet
lnER. We were probably the only persons
present opposed to the motion at the time.
We thought that a MISUNDERSTANDING MlgAt
arise. The mass meeting was called 1or the
purpose OF adopting 1t plan Tor tl0 selecJloh
OF delegates. The executive ommlttoe men
in session was called for the purpose or
adopting a plan TO se!eGt d member or
she state central committee, ana the
plan they adopted was 10 elect the
member on the spot. as CHAIRMAN 1AJIOf
should have stated IN PLAIN words was Tie
object OF the meeting when Ae made the
call. The examining committee NtrT lIn-
properly adopted Tue same Wofdths Whoh
calling The Hltss meeting. Ne thought 10
Curseif at the time tnattue people. tnihklHE
thar the rn.s5 meeting would give them q
primary would not turn OUT, white tEe anu.
Nichols element might take advantage OF
TIE misunderstanding and surprise tA6
Nlcuolls side. Boon after the nasB meeting
was ordered we learned that the McIlntFy-
Moucure dement, were very iubllant, as
they regarded that they had SONS cnalce
of Slipping upon and Surprising the Nichols
chn,ns. Wn0;l they expected would mistake
the purpose Of tbs mass meeting and remain
at houIe."
If thought that any Intelligent man was
so behind in Democratic ethics or pre-
cadpnr rs 70 nany tine SOVEREIGNTY of A mass
meeting. [ might suggest that II it was
rixlt TO select a membrr of tie state Dem
ocraJ,c executive committee under a similar
can, what wand objection could tnere be 10
salrrrlng A delegation FOR the state c0nycu-
rIonf But / only propose to discuss and to
dlsuroye the SNAP Judgment" or "5urpr!sc''
norton of the I-D.'s claim. Now the
Webster EIoultor, the Nfoucure orran.
evldently had some designs on the mass
maerIng' az It has fairy .eemed with
editorials amt paragraphs charging what il
chose 10 term tue big SIX or "Ising,"
WITH every conceivable political design and
urging the farmers TO come out on the 2ls5
and put them down" In addition to this
1t has boasted of ii large CLUB list and that
several parties were diligently ORGANIZING
ali over the parish strong Niuncure clubs.
claiming to me and Others tAar he would
cheat us othe 2Ist.'
The following is part of q doub!e-Ieaded
article IN the last issue of the MonlJor;
the reformerB are driven to desperation.
This Nichols boom has busted. They see
this plainly now,b but. Ike the man in the Ole
saw, they didn't see it until they hit the cell
Ing. They claim that delegates to the Dem
ocratlc convention SHOULD be selected AT the
u.ass meeting next Monday Now they
have discovered that they have proposed d
plan that Is likely TO cause their defeat. 30
they present the poor, elck!y excuse that
they prepared this plan in seIt-Gefense to
prevent 'tnetr little game OF clip up"
Does This prove That the friends Of Gov
erD0r NlchcIls took snap Judgment on
anyone! Does IL not rather dlsproVe 1t and
show that the question had been thoroughly
agltateu ! Does not the Article claim that
the friends OF Governor NICHOLS would
probably he cefeatedf Aud II defeated, by
whom! OF course. by the opposition. II [
had other issues OF the paper. could give
other proof. In = conversation between
MAJOR Barton or the line democrat, l.. Il.